Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Promoting the
value of GCSEs: Does it have any impact on
student motivation and beliefs?
Professor Dave Putwain December 2014
Faculty of Education
1
Background
Why did we conduct this research?
Key Stage 4, and the GCSE programme of study, is viewed by many as the most important
and pressured phase of secondary schooling. GCSEs are high-stakes qualifications and their
outcomes can, and do, influence students’ future life chances. Perhaps it is not surprising,
therefore, that many Year 10 and 11 teachers feel that it is important to stress to students
the value and worth of GCSEs; how they are viewed by employers, what grades are required
for 6th
form or further education colleges, how success (or failure) can influence one’s life
and so forth. We have been working with Year 10 and 11 teachers and students to examine
the messages teachers are communicating to their students about the value and worth of
GCSEs (for brevity, we refer to these as value-promoting statements) and what, if any,
effects they may be having on their students.
What has earlier research told us?
• Year 10 and 11 teachers frequently communicate to students messages about the
importance of GCSEs, the importance of working hard and that effort will be rewarded.
Sometimes these messages focus on the benefits of success (a bit more ‘carrot’) and
sometimes these messages focus on consequences of failure (a bit more ‘stick’).
• In particular, we have concentrated on two types of value-promoting messages used by
Year 10 and 11 teachers that we call consequence reminders and exam reminders.
Consequence reminders are messages that highlight the value and worth of GCSEs for
one’s future life. Exam reminders are messages about the time left to prepare for
important exams. Consequence reminders are used more frequently in some subjects
(e.g., English and maths) than others.
• Year 10 and 11 students interpret value-promoting messages in different ways. Some
students respond to them positively and see them as motivating. Some students view
them negatively and see them as anxiety-provoking. Other students may regard them as
irrelevant and disregard them.
• Students are more likely to ignore value-promoting messages and see them as irrelevant
if they do not see the value or worth of GCSEs. This is the type of student who may
either value non-academic pursuits or who has disengaged from their schooling or GCSE
studies.
• Students are more likely to listen to value-promoting messages if they value GCSEs and
see them as contributing towards their future. Students who believe they are capable of
meeting or surpassing their target grade are more likely to see value-promoting
messages as positive and motivating. Students who do not believe they are capable of
meeting or surpassing their target grade are more likely to see value-promoting
messages as negative and threatening.
2
• The use and frequency of value-promoting messages does impact on GCSE grades. Year
11 students who interpret messages positively and as motivating, tend to work more
effectively, use better learning strategies, and achieve better GCSE grades. Year 11
students who interpret messages negatively and as threatening, tend to worry about the
likelihood of failure, use weaker learning strategies, and perform worse in their GCSEs.
3
Our approach to the present research
What did we do?
We conducted studies that used three types of design, namely experimental, naturalistic
experimental and naturalistic. These studies are described below.
1. Experimental
In these studies we manipulated the characteristics of fictitious Year 10 and Year 11
students presented in vignettes and asked participants (A level students) how they thought
the student would have responded to different types of value-promoting messages. In these
studies we examined the following variables:
• Expectation of success: did the fictitious student expect to pass or fail their GCSE in a
particular subject?
• Value: did the fictitious student view success or failure in that subject as important?
• Growth mindset: did the fictitious student view subject ability as something that is fixed
or that develops with effort?
• Message frame: was the value-promoting message focused on the positive
consequences of success (more carrot) or avoiding the negative consequences of failure
(more stick)?
2. Naturalistic experimental
In these studies we asked Year 10 and Year 11 students to tell us about their own beliefs
and values and how they would respond to different types of value-promoting messages. In
these studies we examined the following variables:
• Expectation of success: did they expect to pass or fail their GCSE in a particular subject?
• Value: did they view the subject as interesting and enjoyable in its own right, regard
attainment in that subject as important and see the subject as important in helping
them to achieve their aspirations (such as getting in to college).
• Growth mindset: did they view subject ability as something that is fixed or that develops
with effort?
• Message frame: was the value-promoting message focused on the positive
consequences of success (more carrot) or avoiding the negative consequences of failure
(more stick)?
3. Naturalistic
In these studies we asked Year 10 and Year 11 students to tell us about their own beliefs
and values, how often their teacher in a particular class used exam and consequence
reminders and how they responded to those messages. We also asked teachers of these
4
classes how often they used exam and consequence reminders were used. In these studies
we examined the following variables:
• Expectation of success: did they expect to pass or fail their GCSE in a particular subject?
• Value: did they view the subject as interesting and enjoyable in its own right, regard
attainment in that subject as important and see the subject as important in helping
them to achieve their aspirations (such as getting in to college).
• Academic buoyancy: did the student believe that they respond positively to dealing with
setbacks and exam pressure?
• Teacher use of value-promoting messages: the type and frequency of value-promoting
messages their teachers use, and whether they perceive these messages as threatening
or challenging.
5
Key Findings
1. How often are Year 10 and 11 teachers using value-promoting messages?
Most Year 10 and 11 teachers used exam reminders relatively frequently. Consequence
reminders tended to be used more frequently in English, maths and science than others
subjects. However, there was variation between teachers. Some never used exam or
consequence reminders whereas others used them very frequently. Figure 1 shows the % of
students reporting their teachers to use consequence and exam reminders in all subjects
and Figure 2 for consequence and exam reminders in English and maths only.
Figure 1: Frequency of consequence and exam reminders in all subjects
Figure 2: Frequency of consequence and exam reminders for English and maths
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Perc
en
t o
f R
esp
on
ses
Consequence
Reminders
Exam Reminders
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Perc
en
t o
f R
esp
on
ses
Consequence
Reminders
Exam Reminders
6
2. What student characteristics influence how they interpret value promoting-messages?
Year 10 and 11 students who do not see the value or worth of GCSEs tend to ignore or
disregard value-promoting messages. When students value and expect to meet or surpass
their target grades they see value-promoting messages as positive and motivating. If they do
not expect to meet their target grade, or fail their GCSE, they see value-promoting messages
as negative and threatening. Figure 3 shows students responses (disregard, motivating or
threatening) measured on a 180-point scale. Beliefs about ability (is it static or does it
respond to effort and hard work?) did not have a big impact on how students interpreted
value-promoting messages. Students who believed that they good at ‘bouncing back’ from
setbacks and withstanding pressure (academically buoyant students) viewed consequence
reminders as more positive and motivating. Figure 4 shows how students found
consequence reminders as motivating (measured on a 5-point scale) when they believed
they good at withstanding pressure.
Figure 3: How Year 10 and 11 students interpret value-promoting messages by value (V) and expectation of
success (ES)
Figure 4: How Year 10 and 11 students interpret consequence reminders by academic buoyancy
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Resp
on
ses
Disregard
Motivator
Threat
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low High
Mo
tiv
ati
ng
Consequence Reminders
High
Mid
Low
Academic
Buoyancy
7
3. Does it make a difference whether the value-promoting message focused more on
success or failure?
Value-promoting messages can be focused on the benefits of success (more carrot) or the
importance of avoiding failure (more stick). The focus of the value-promoting message does
not make any difference to whether the student disregards the message or sees it as
challenging. When the value-promoting message focused on the consequences of failure
(and hence the importance of avoiding failure) it was seen by Year 10 and 11 students as
more negative and threatening, although the effect wasn’t large. Figure 5 shows that
students interpreted messages as slightly more threatening (measured on a 180-point scale)
when focused on avoiding the negative consequences of failure.
Figure 5: How Year 10 and 11 students interpret value-promoting messages focusing on success or failure
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Th
reat
Resp
on
se
Success
Failure
Message Focus
8
4. Does the use of value-promoting messages by Year 10 and 11 teachers influence
students to value their GCSEs more?
Figure 6 shows that more use of exam reminders by teachers resulted in students seeing
their GCSEs as more valuable (measured on a 5-point scale). However, more use of
consequence reminders by teachers resulted in students seeing their GCSEs as less valuable.
However, the impact of exam and consequence reminders did change depending on
students’ interpretation of the message. Figure 7 shows that students who interpreted
messages as motivating saw GCSEs as more valuable (measured on a 5-point scale) whereas
students who interpreted messages as threatening saw GCSEs as less valuable. This type of
‘devaluing’ is fairly common in students who fear failure. Reducing the worth or importance
of GCSEs is a way of protecting oneself against the disappointment of not reaching one’s
target grade. Unfortunately, these self-protection strategies also tend to result in a
withdrawal of effort and participation in lessons.
Figure 6: How more use of exam reminders leads to greater value of GCSEs and greater use of consequence
reminders leads to less value
Figure 7: Value-promoting messages lead to greater valuing of grade and greater interest and enjoyment when
interpreted as motivating rather than threatening
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low High
Va
lue
of
GC
SE
Frequency of Reminders
Exam
Consequences
Message
Type
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Valu
e f
o G
CS
E
Threat
Motivator
Message
Interpretation
9
Summary of Findings
• Year 10 and 11 teachers convey to students messages about the value and worth of
GCSEs.
• Most year 10 and 11 teachers use exam reminders frequently. Consequence reminders
are used more in English and maths than other subjects.
• Both year 10 and 11 students may interpret value-promoting messages differently. The
key factors are whether GCSEs are valued, success is expected and the student is good at
‘bouncing back’.
• When the value-promoting message focused on the importance of avoiding failure,
rather than attaining success, it was seen by students as more negative and threatening,
although it was only a small effect.
• Value-promoting messages have an impact on student’s beliefs about the value and
worthiness of GCSEs.
• In general, exam reminders have a positive effect, and lead to students seeing GCSEs as
more valuable.
• In general, consequence reminders have a negative effect, and lead to students seeing
GCSEs as less valuable.
• The effect of exam and consequence reminders is influenced by how students appraise
them.
• When value-promoting messages are appraised as being motivating, they have a
positive effect and students see GCSEs as more valuable.
• When value-promoting messages are appraised as being threatening, they have a
negative effect and students see GCSEs as less valuable.
10
Implications for Practice
The most important conclusion is that what teachers say in the classroom does have an
impact, and that messages that convey the worth and importance of GCSEs are not
necessarily interpreted by students as intended.
1. Reminding students about deadlines and forthcoming exams can have a positive
outcome.
2. Messages emphasising the benefits that GCSEs can bring to ones future can have
negative outcome.
3. Putting a positive spin on things and emphasising attainment rather than avoiding failure
doesn’t seem to have much of an effect.
There is probably no such thing as the ‘optimal’ message to give to students, but the key
seems to be trying to understand things from a student’s perspective. What are their beliefs
about their own subject ability, enjoyment of subject, capacity for handling pressure and the
importance of GCSEs? We suggest that colleagues reflect on the particular characteristics of
individuals or groups of students and think about ways to adapt and present motivational
messages based on the beliefs and dispositions of those students.
One particular issue relates to ability grouping. Do students in higher sets necessarily
respond better to value-promoting messages because they are more likely to value GCSEs
and expect success? This may be partly true, but we would also emphasise that the critical
element in relation to student expectation of success is not their actual ability but they
beliefs about their ability. Some students in lower sets may actually have higher ability
beliefs than students in higher sets. Some students in a C/D borderline group may, for
instance, be very confident in their ability to achieve a target grade (e.g., a grade C), have
strong ability beliefs and respond positively to value-promoting messages. Some students in
a top set who have A* as a target grade may not be confident in their ability to reach that
grade, have lower ability beliefs and respond positively to value-promoting messages. This
issue further highlights the importance of trying to see things from the perspective of the
student.
11
Evidence Base:
The findings explained in this report are evidence-based. In writing this report we drew on
research outlined in the following publications:
1. Putwain, D.W., & Roberts, C.M. (2009) The development and validation of the Teachers
Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 643-
661.
2. Putwain, D.W., & Symes, W. (2011) Classroom fear appeals and examination
performance: facilitating or debilitating outcomes? Learning and Individual Differences,
21(2), 227-232.
3. Putwain, D.W., & Symes, W. (2011) Teachers’ use of fear appeals in the Mathematics
classroom: worrying or motivating students? British Journal of Educational Psychology
81(3), 456-474.
4. Putwain, D.W., & Roberts, C.M. (2012). Fear and efficacy appeals in the classroom: the
secondary teachers’ perspective. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of
Experimental Educational Psychology, 32(3), 355-372.
5. Putwain, D.W. & Symes, W. (2014). Subjective value and academic self-efficacy: The
appraisal of fear appeals used prior to a high-stakes test as threatening or challenging.
Social Psychology of Education, 17(2), 229-248.
6. Putwain, D.W., & Remedios, R. (in press). The scare tactic: Messages which contain fear
appeals prior to a high-stakes test predict lower self-determined motivation and exam
scores. School Psychology Quarterly.
7. Putwain, D.W., Remedios, R., & Symes, W. (in press). The appraisal of fear appeals as
threatening or challenging: Frequency of use, academic self-efficacy and subjective
value. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational
Psychology,
8. Putwain, D.W. & Remedios, R. (in press) Fear appeals used prior to a high-stakes
examination: What makes them threatening? Learning and Individual Differences.
12
The Project Team
Professor Dave Putwain, Faculty of Education, Edge Hill University
Dr Richard Remedios, School of education, The University of Durham
Dr Wendy Symes, Faculty of Education, Edge Hill University
We gratefully acknowledge the British Academy for providing funding for this programme of
research (SG121931).
Prof. Dave Putwain,Faculty of Educa�on,Edge Hill University,St Helens Road,Ormskirk,Lancashire,L39 4QP.
E: [email protected]: 01695 584498
